luchs

Forgive me if has been discussed, but luchs seems a bit strong for its pricetag, compare to similar tank the t70 it is 20 fuel cheaper to buy.

1. The luch's gun is better at both AI (shredding inf and dealing some suppression) and Anti light vehicle (higher rate of fire seems to shred faster, t70 would take some time to take out say a werfer but luchs munches through katuyusha)

2. The fuel cost overall to field a luchs is less and i know okw get less fuel but you can't use that as excuse because that's the way the faction is meant to be fuel starved,
t70 quickest route fuel 40-120-70=230
luchs quickest route fuel 40-80-50= 170

The both seemed to be reasonably same armour and i think t70 only just wins in a fight but not sure on that.

I'm not trying to bash the luchs and call for nerf, but i just need someone to explain how the cost is justified. Thank you

The cost is justified by its late arrival (T4) and the OKW fuel income. You threw the argument out the window when you said you can't factor in the limited fuel.

The problem is more with the T70, which is not significantly cheaper than a T34, and doesn't have any special abilities or extra stats to compensate.

T70 has twice the penetration of the luchs making it better against tanks (stil not great though)
I also find the t70 more reliable in killing infantry because the luchs uses the flak stuff

but what is the point in having a faction with reduced fuel income if their fuel to tech is a lot cheaper? is it so they can tech at same speed but the vehicles come out slower?. I am impressed how they manage to balance everything out (talking about general faction structure) like russian/wehr tech is more expensive/same price than USA and OKW but USA/OKW get units (usa lt. and cpt.) or helpful buildings (medic/rep/flak OKW) I don't know how it balances out but it seems to

The fuel cost to tech for OKW is basically the same as the other factions, given their 66% of normal fuel income. They start with 40 fuel, enough to put a starting structure, and T4 is 80 (66% of 120, normal soviet cost).

The vehicles are generally not cheaper though. Panther is the same as Wehr, Puma is 70 which makes it cost nearly the same as a T34 given the reduced income. I think the idea, for the most party, is the high cost - high firepower of OKW.

The new factions getting bonuses from their tech is an advantage that Sov/Wehr don't have. They're also the only ones that have to build structures with engineers. Wehr/Sov feels very uninspired next to US/OKW.

Well, by the time the Luchs hits the field, AT guns and/or Guards will be quite obtainable, so... it's hardly an unstoppable killer.

The reduced fuel income means that you cant replace lost vehicles as fast as other factions can. So if you lose vehicles with OKW...then gg

Get the vet 1 ability for luchs and the luchs is nearly unkillable. In a light vs light, luchs out DPS T-70 and Stuart and he can also scout for your army. You'll only need 1 but it's all you need against shocks/para.

2. The fuel cost overall to field a luchs is less and i know okw get less fuel but you can't use that as excuse because that's the way the faction is meant to be fuel starved,
t70 quickest route fuel 40-120-70=230
luchs quickest route fuel 40-80-50= 170

You get exactly 66% of the fuel you would get with any other faction as the OKW, given the same map control. The "Quickest route to the Luchs" doesn't actually cost 170 fuel, but 170/0.66 fuel, which equals 257.575757576 according to google calculator. This is slightly more than the 230 fuel you have to pay with the Soviets.

True, you can convert munitions into fuel, but keep in mind that although you may have extra fuel, you have less munitions, meaning you have less flexibility in what you can do with grenades/upgrades etc (Something which can be exploited by your enemy). Your econonmy, given the unit value of fuel and munitions, is still the same.

Also, rushing for a Luchs is generally extremely risky given that the OKW lack a "Real" AT-gun (The raketen without vet is kinda bad). Volks with schreks are pretty good but they're not really effective in killing Tanks by themselves; whereas they can repel tanks, they're only Infantry and aren't fast enough to cover the entire map against a tank. Plus, they can't really kill tanks by themselves, as a competant player will simply pull his tank back when its at low health: Volks don't have the speed to chase. All this is to say, the Luchs isn't a super-early unit unless you get screwed in the early game and give the opponent no reason to have to get Pumas/FlaK-HTs (In which case, it's probably a PEBKAC problem, or RNG), so you should have stuff to deal with it by the time it comes out.

Dude don't forget OKW get 40 fuel at the start of the game so it's actually 40 + 130/0.66 = 237 fuel, nearly the same as T70 with the benefit of OKW building: free repair/healing + 1 monster turret. The luchs cost is fine, use them to punish Soviet who goes T1/2 and waiting for call-ins, same as USF who relies on Ez8 Sherman. Allied forces will need a real tank to hunt down Luchs or watch their inf melted.

You get exactly 66% of the fuel you would get with any other faction as the OKW, given the same map control. The "Quickest route to the Luchs" doesn't actually cost 170 fuel, but 170/0.66 fuel, which equals 257.575757576 according to google calculator. This is slightly more than the 230 fuel you have to pay with the Soviets.

This is slightly pedantic but the 66% fuel income is slightly inaccurate for OKW.

All income from points is decreased by 66%. However all sides get a permanent +4 fuel at the start of the game which is not lowered for OKW.

Let's assume 1 fuel point, 5 strategic points.

For normal player: 4 base + 15 strategic + 7 fuel = 26.

For OKW player: 4 base + 10 strategic + 4.6 fuel = 18.6

18.6/26 = 71.7% fuel income of other sides with even map control.

It's only a raw 5% difference but that is like... 16% more fuel income that 66% mathematically I think?

... anyways to get back onto the main point the 'Luchs' is quite fine. It comes out at roughly the same time as a T-70.

I am going to ignore the "first" tier for both sides. OKW starts with 40 fuel so it can build it's first tier immediately if it wants to. Soviets start with 50 and can get either a 40 or 50 cost tier so their first one is "free" too.

Soviets: 120 (Tier 3) + 70 (T-70) = 190 fuel (180 if you went Tier 1).
OKW: 80 (Tier 4) + 50 (Luchs) = 130/.717 = 181 fuel

As you can see it is almost exactly the same fuel cost to rush it out.

It's a odd little light tank that I'd like to play around with more. It loses to every other light-tank due to it's terrible penetration and frontal armor but it has 80 more health so it tends to soak damage better. It's an interesting little beast.

This is slightly pedantic but the 66% fuel income is slightly inaccurate for OKW.

All income from points is decreased by 66%. However all sides get a permanent +4 fuel at the start of the game which is not lowered for OKW.

Let's assume 1 fuel point, 5 strategic points.

For normal player: 4 base + 15 strategic + 7 fuel = 26.

For OKW player: 4 base + 10 strategic + 4.6 fuel = 18.6

18.6/26 = 71.7% fuel income of other sides with even map control.

It's only a raw 5% difference but that is like... 16% more fuel income that 66% mathematically I think?

Sound logic. I didn't consider the +4 at the start. However, you have to consider that the percentage fuel the OKW get compared to a "normal" faction varies depending on the map control and fuel income of both factions. As the OKW control more territory, the +4 becomes increasingly insignificant and as they control less territory, it becomes increasingly significant, and thus percentages will change. For calculations, it's easier to assume that the +4 is irrelevant and the OKW get a fixed 66% of a normal player's resources, as the percentage - if you consider the +4 - is dependent on map control, which you can't predict or know in these sort of discussions.

The OKW also tend to hold (significantly) less ground in the early game in an equal skill matchup.

The OKW also tend to hold (significantly) less ground in the early game in an equal skill matchup.

More like the opposite, early game when maxim wall is still thin Soviet have to be conservative with their maxim or it will be wiped by Sturmpio from behind, against US they also have no counter to Kubel if their forces spread out. OKW unit works best when u send your first sturmpio and Kubel/Volks straight to the cut off point than cap backwards.

More like the opposite, early game when maxim wall is still thin Soviet have to be conservative with their maxim or it will be wiped by Sturmpio from behind, against US they also have no counter to Kubel if their forces spread out. OKW unit works best when u send your first sturmpio and Kubel/Volks straight to the cut off point than cap backwards.

This isn't my experience of things.

Both the Soviets and the Americans have a distinct infantry advantage over the OKW due to their main-line infantry being flatout better. Well microed conscripts generally trump well microed volksgrens pretty hard; you'll need a map advantage for any other result. I'm not even going to go into the power of Maxims and Scout Cars (Both the soviet tiers being extremely useful against early-game OKW infantry).

Rifles are pretty good aswell and a Kubel - while being a pain - isn't generally really significant in the grand scheme of the early game infantry war for two reasons: It's extremely easy to destroy (Especially with flanking; takes a lot of micro and attentiveness to be able to prevent a Kubel from dying in this way) and becomes redundant after any form of AT heavier than the Rifle's standard issue Garands comes out. Let's not even go into how useless the Kubel is against Sovs.

Sturmpios are good, there's no denying that, but they're expensive to reinforce and getting a new one really puts a dent in your manpower. Although, when used properly, the Sturmpio is an amazing unit, having engagements where you don't use your sturmpios cost-effectively can be extremely detrimental for your MP drain. I've had early sturmpio wipes against some of the best OKW players in the game (Simply because of the sheer vulnerability of the unit).

As vietnamabc said, a kubel against USF and a extra Sturmpio against soviets gives high chances to OKW to win their first engagement.

Maxims or sniper+M3 openings are much more powerful against OKW than cons, but as a drawback you must be defensive and don't push too much.

Sound logic. I didn't consider the +4 at the start. However, you have to consider that the percentage fuel the OKW get compared to a "normal" faction varies depending on the map control and fuel income of both factions. As the OKW control more territory, the +4 becomes increasingly insignificant and as they control less territory, it becomes increasingly significant, and thus percentages will change. For calculations, it's easier to assume that the +4 is irrelevant and the OKW get a fixed 66% of a normal player's resources, as the percentage - if you consider the +4 - is dependent on map control, which you can't predict or know in these sort of discussions.

The OKW also tend to hold (significantly) less ground in the early game in an equal skill matchup.

Yeah. It's a moving target to calculate. I don't blame people for using the simpler 66% but I like to keep it in context myself.

On a general level I agree with Albus' assertion that OKW probably has slightly less map control than other sides early game.

It's significantly less true in team games 2v2+ but in 1v1s at my level I find OKW struggles early game. This can be mitigated by map sometimes but advantages that the Allies draw upon for their good early game are often robust enough that they can be applied to most maps I think.